The Republican. [volume] (Oakland, Md.) 1877-current, 1887-12-10

ciety, the courts cannot, without |
usurping legislative functions, over
ride the will of the people as thus ex-
pressed by their chosen representa-
tives. 1t is easy to be seen that the
entire scheme of prohibition, as en-
bodied in the constitution and laws
of Kansas, might fail if the right OF
each citizen to manufacture intoXi-
eating liquors for his own use as a
beverage were recognized. Such a
right does not inhere in citizenship.
at is contended that as the pri-
mary and principal use of beer is as
beverage; as the breweries were
erected when it was lawful to engage
in the manufacture of beer for every
purpose; as such establishments will
become of no value as property, or, at
least, will be very materially dimin-
ished in value, if not employed in
the manufacture of beer for every
purpose, the prohibition upon their
being so employed is in effect a taxi
ing of property for public use with
out compensation, and consequently
a deprivation of property without
due process of law.
"This Interpretation of the four
tenth amendment is inadmissible.
All property in this country is held
under the implied obligation that the
owners use of it "shall not be in
furious to the equal enjoyment of
Others having an equal right to the
enjoyment of their property, nor in
furious to the rights of the commu-
nity.' The power which the States
unquestionably have of prohibiting
such use by individuals of their
property as will be prejudicial to the
health, the morals or the safety of
the public, is not-and, consistently
with the existence of organized So
clety, could not be-burdened with
the condition that the State must
compensate such individual owners
for pecuuiary losses they sustain by
reason of their not being permitted
by noxious use of their property.
to infiict injury upon the community
of which they form part. The ex-
ercise of the police power by the de-
struction of property which is itself
public nuisance, or the prohibition
of IFS use in particular way where
by its value becomes deprecated, is
very different from taking property
for public use or from depriving a
person of his property without due
process of law. In the one case a
nuisance only is abated in the other
unoffending property is taken away
from an innocent owner. 1t is true
that when the defendants in these
cases purchased or erected their brew
cries the laws of the State did not
forbid the manufacture of intOxicat
ing liquors. But the State did not
thereby give any assurance or come
under an obligation that its legisIa-
ton upon that subject would remain
unchanged. Indeed, as was said in
Stone VS.. Mississippi, 101 U. S., the
supervision of the public health and
the public morals is a governmental
power continuing in its power and
to be dealt with as the special ext
gencies of the moment may require. ,
"For the reasons stated we are of
opinion that Mugler, the plaintiff in
error, has not been denied by the
judgments of the Supreme Court of
Kansas any right, privilege or i'm.
munity secured to him by the consti-
tuition of the United States, and its
judgment in each case is accordingly
affirmed. We are also of opinion
that the Circuit Court of the United
States erred in dismissing the bill OF
the State in her suit against ZieboId
and Hagelin. Justice Field concur,
red in the opinion so far as it related
to the two cases in which the State OF
KansasWas defendant, but dissented
as TO the case of the State of Kansas
VS.. Ziebold.